Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2001 (1) TMI 43 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Capital Gains on Equity Shares: High Court Gujarat Applies Supreme Court Precedents The High Court of Gujarat held that the determination of capital gains on the sale of equity shares should follow the Supreme Court's principles in ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                          Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                              Capital Gains on Equity Shares: High Court Gujarat Applies Supreme Court Precedents

                              The High Court of Gujarat held that the determination of capital gains on the sale of equity shares should follow the Supreme Court's principles in Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 509. The court emphasized the relevance of Shekhawati General Traders Ltd.'s case [1971] 82 ITR 788 (SC) for exceptional situations. The references were disposed of without costs, providing clarity on applying legal principles in similar cases.




                              Issues:
                              1. Determination of capital gains on the sale of bonus shares.
                              2. Application of principles from previous Supreme Court decisions.
                              3. Interpretation of the decision in Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 509.
                              4. Relevance of Shekhawati General Traders Ltd.'s case [1971] 82 ITR 788 (SC) in current scenarios.

                              Issue 1: Determination of capital gains on the sale of bonus shares

                              The case involved a dispute regarding the method of determining capital gains on the sale of bonus shares of a company. The assessees had purchased equity shares of a company before a certain date and received bonus shares later. The Income-tax Officer calculated the capital gains by considering the actual cost of the original shares and zero cost for the bonus shares. However, the assessees applied the average costing method for bonus shares based on Supreme Court precedents. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessees, leading the Revenue to appeal before the Tribunal.

                              Issue 2: Application of principles from previous Supreme Court decisions

                              The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the cost of bonus shares should be determined through average costing if the bonus shares were of equal rank with the original shares. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions and emphasized the importance of consistency in such cases. The assessees argued that the principles established in earlier Supreme Court cases should govern the determination of capital gains in their situations.

                              Issue 3: Interpretation of the decision in Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 509

                              During the proceedings, the counsels referred to the decision in Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 509, where the Supreme Court clarified that the actual cost of shares should generally be based on the average value, except in exceptional cases where the actual cost on a specific statutory date is considered. The apex court highlighted that the issuance of bonus shares could impact the original cost of acquisition, necessitating a different approach to determining capital gains.

                              Issue 4: Relevance of Shekhawati General Traders Ltd.'s case [1971] 82 ITR 788 (SC) in current scenarios

                              The assessees contended that since the original shares were acquired before the relevant statutory date, the Tribunal correctly followed the principles outlined in Shekhawati General Traders Ltd.'s case [1971] 82 ITR 788 (SC). The court acknowledged the importance of this precedent and noted that it had not been overruled or modified by subsequent decisions. The court emphasized that the assessees must demonstrate how their cases align with the principles from Shekhawati General Traders Ltd.'s case for exceptional situations.

                              In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat decided that the determination of capital gains on the sale of equity shares should adhere to the principles established by the Supreme Court in Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 509. The court also recognized the continued relevance of Shekhawati General Traders Ltd.'s case [1971] 82 ITR 788 (SC) for exceptional cases. The references were disposed of with no orders as to costs, providing clarity on the application of legal principles in similar scenarios.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found